Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Humphries, 4th Cir. (2002)
United States v. Humphries, 4th Cir. (2002)
United States v. Humphries, 4th Cir. (2002)
No. 01-4822
COUNSEL
Matthew A. Victor, VICTOR, VICTOR & HELGOE, L.L.P.,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United
States Attorney, Steven I. Loew, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Debbie Humphries appeals her jury convictions and seventy-two
month sentence for possession of stolen firearms, in violation of 18
U.S.C. 922(j), 924(a)(2) (1994) and possession of firearms by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)
(1994). Finding no error, we affirm.
Humphries first contends there was insufficient evidence to support
her jury convictions. This Court reviews a jury verdict for sufficiency
of the evidence by determining whether there is substantial evidence,
when viewed in a light most favorable to the government, to support
the verdict. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). The evidence presented at trial demonstrated Humphries possessed two stolen
firearms. Further, two law enforcement officers recovered five firearms from Humphries bedroom and closet. We thus find there was
sufficient evidence to support the jurys verdict.
Humphries next contends the district court abused its discretion by
denying her motion for a new trial based on inconsistent verdicts.
Even assuming the verdicts were inconsistent, such inconsistency provides no basis for vacating a verdict or ordering a new trial. See
United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 64-65 (1984); United States v.
Helem, 186 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir. 1999). Therefore, the district court
did not abuse its discretion.
Humphries next contends the district court erred in enhancing her
sentence for obstruction of justice due to its finding she committed
perjury at trial. See United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual
3C1.1 (1998). Humphries also contests the district courts enhancement pursuant to 2K2.1(b)(1)(C) for possessing nine firearms
because the jury acquitted her of possessing two of them.
The district court did not err in finding Humphries perjury at trial
warranted application of a two-level enhancement under 3C1.1. See
United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 92-98 (1993). Further, it is
well settled that acquittal of an offense does not preclude a sentence